You got it. I asked Lance initially if he had an independent inspiration, or had an opinion, or whether he was getting his opinions from othes (meaning favorite preacher/theologian or the Bible). He seemed to say he was the direct recipient of wisdom.

The Bible says God prepared Hell for the Devil and that eventually he will chain him there for eternity. Lance says the Devil will be eventually redeemed.

Pray to God the Almighty for Wisdom and you don't need to go to school to know anything. Make Him your Rock and you will outwitt every scientist on the face of the earth.

This is a testable claim. Since you presumably pray to Yahweh for wisdom, make him your rock, etc., you should be able to outwit every scientist on the face of the Earth. So where's your Nobel Prize? Cold fusion device that demonstrably works, with your name on the patent? Published paper with the most elegant possible solution for Fermat's Last Theorem? If Yahweh isn't able to take on the scientists, he ought to at least be able to outperform the Dow, right? So where's your perfect record of profitable stock picks? If Christians really have an omniscient, omnipotent best buddy, surely this would be obvious, wouldn't it?

Let's say Stephen Hawking was my roommate and best friend. That would have results. For one thing, just from the conversations we'd have over pints after work, I would know more physics than most people. If somebody asked me a difficult question related to physics or cosmology, I could say, "I'll get back to you on that," then, the next day, return with an answer obviously more advanced than my own layman's grasp of the subject.

If I was adopted into the Rothschild family, that would have results. For one thing, any money problems would disappear. I would rather abruptly start wearing nicer, more expensive clothes, driving a newer car, visiting interesting places around the world, and so on. I would start to receive training in the Family business(es) and general instruction in How To Be A Zillionaire Magnate. My life would change.

Now let's say I should happen to befriend an alien, a member of an incredibly-advanced interstellar supercivilization. Due to technological, genetic, etc. enhancements introduced into their species over the last few million years, this alien is a billion times more intelligent, artistically talented, etc. than the entire human species put together. Isn't it pretty obvious that even if my new friend only helps me out once in awhile or gives me some minor (to her) bio-nanotech upgrade, that I would start to manifest a visible aura of formidability as the advantages conferred by my relationship became apparent?

Now, let's say that I had as my friend and mentor, the omnipotent, omniscient creator of all that is. How could this not result in me striding like a colossus through a world of people who, lacking that relationship, can only access merely human levels of intelligence and competence? In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

So where is the aura of formidability and practical advantage that access to flawless omniscient wisdom and the support of omnipotent power would inevitably provide for you, if your claims were valid? Even if Yahweh honorably refused to help you cheat on your tests and job interviews, you would still inevitably learn things in the course of ordinary conversation that we mere mortals couldn't. Like rooming with Stephen Hawking and Warren Buffet, only infinitely better.

And yet, we can see, laid out before us in your posts right here on this forum, that your imaginary friend is not any smarter than you are. Likewise for the people who "channel" extraterrestrials or ancient Atlantean sages. The demonstrable lack of access to superhuman levels of intelligence and knowledge for Biblical authors, people like you, or any other alleged contactee of the supernatural is powerful evidence for an atheistic, naturalist world view. It fits exactly with the anticipated consequences we expect, and flatly contradicts the anticipated consequences of some humans having access to superhuman sources of knowledge.

A perfect being can't create something that is imperfect. Nor would it really need to create anything. A being of perfection has everything it could ever need or want. So it has no need to create, because it has everything that it needs already. Basically a perfect being would be one that takes no action and never changes. That's why trying to describe god as 'perfect' always fails.

A perfect being can't create something that is imperfect. Nor would it really need to create anything. A being of perfection has everything it could ever need or want. So it has no need to create, because it has everything that it needs already. Basically a perfect being would be one that takes no action and never changes. That's why trying to describe god as 'perfect' always fails.

A perfect being can't create something that is imperfect. Nor would it really need to create anything. A being of perfection has everything it could ever need or want. So it has no need to create, because it has everything that it needs already. Basically a perfect being would be one that takes no action and never changes. That's why trying to describe god as 'perfect' always fails.

The concept of metaphysical perfection is fractally self-contradictory. A god can't be "perfect" unless it manifests its perfection somehow. Otherwise it's only potentially perfect. Like, if I say I'm a perfect chess player, that doesn't count for anything if I never play a game of chess. So, it could be argued that a perfect god would have to create. Now, the Greek word for "sin" in the New Tstament is hamartia, an archery term that means "to miss the mark." What is the "mark?"

Quote

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

--Romans 3:23

So, if Yahweh's metaphysical perfection is the standard, it is apparent that no created entity can meet it. Why? Because (per Anselm's Ontological Argument) maximal awesomeness can only be met by a single entity, God. It's impossible to have two omnimaxes, because their omni-nesses could cancel each other if they disagreed on something, rendering neither truly omnipotent. So, a created entity has to "fall short of the glory of God.

Nutshell: "Sin" is inevitable.

Logged

"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

Interesting how Lance has no problems accusing God of making a mistake, and of trying to keep everyone else from knowing about it. Guess Lance is able to discern what God wanted to keep hidden. Or Lance is just guessing and hasn't thought this through very well. Or he's just saying things that sound good to keep the conversation going for his own amusement. I have my suspicions as to which, especially since he's now saying that an evil God wouldn't have done various evil things for Satan's education. Personally, that last strikes me as teaching someone not to wrestle with pigs by jumping into the mud and tackling one.

Seriously, though, if Lance believes God is capable of making a mistake (regardless of whether he wants to hide it or not), then most of his 'theology' falls apart. A being which makes mistakes is not perfect. A non-perfect being cannot be used as the definition of good, because the concept of good as a whole can't be represented by something which isn't perfectly good. So now his idea of "God represents good" starts to make sense, because since he knows he can't get away with claiming God is perfect if someone actually pays attention, he has to have a fallback position, specifically to claim that God represents the concept of goodness. Except that his fallback position is already compromised, because God can't represent good due to God not being perfect.

I'll be interested to hear just what kind of rationale Lance comes up with to explain this away.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

There'd be no reason to create something. There's nothing you want, nothing you need. You're completely whole as you are. The entire reason we do anything is to answer some sort of desire or need within us, even if it's just to serve a temporary whim. A perfect being does not have such things to respond to.

Also a perfect being can't change. Because it's already perfect, so any change would make it less perfect. Basically a truly perfect being would do nothing except exist.

Interesting how Lance has no problems accusing God of making a mistake, and of trying to keep everyone else from knowing about it. Guess Lance is able to discern what God wanted to keep hidden. Or Lance is just guessing and hasn't thought this through very well. Or he's just saying things that sound good to keep the conversation going for his own amusement. I have my suspicions as to which, especially since he's now saying that an evil God wouldn't have done various evil things for Satan's education. Personally, that last strikes me as teaching someone not to wrestle with pigs by jumping into the mud and tackling one.

Seriously, though, if Lance believes God is capable of making a mistake (regardless of whether he wants to hide it or not), then most of his 'theology' falls apart. A being which makes mistakes is not perfect. A non-perfect being cannot be used as the definition of good, because the concept of good as a whole can't be represented by something which isn't perfectly good. So now his idea of "God represents good" starts to make sense, because since he knows he can't get away with claiming God is perfect if someone actually pays attention, he has to have a fallback position, specifically to claim that God represents the concept of goodness. Except that his fallback position is already compromised, because God can't represent good due to God not being perfect.

I'll be interested to hear just what kind of rationale Lance comes up with to explain this away.

I'm guessing it'll be some variant of "Damnit, I've said it a million times!Satan created evil not god! Look at the pretty birdies,WHEEEE!"

« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 09:32:04 AM by Alzael »

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

There'd be no reason to create something. There's nothing you want, nothing you need. You're completely whole as you are. The entire reason we do anything is to answer some sort of desire or need within us, even if it's just to serve a temporary whim. A perfect being does not have such things to respond to.

That's the thing - Haven't you ever done anything for absolutely no reason?

And yet, we can see, laid out before us in your posts right here on this forum, that your imaginary friend is not any smarter than you are. Likewise for the people who "channel" extraterrestrials or ancient Atlantean sages. The demonstrable lack of access to superhuman levels of intelligence and knowledge for Biblical authors, people like you, or any other alleged contactee of the supernatural is powerful evidence for an atheistic, naturalist world view. It fits exactly with the anticipated consequences we expect, and flatly contradicts the anticipated consequences of some humans having access to superhuman sources of knowledge.

While I certainly do not disagree with you, there is one explanation that allows for some such people to have access to such a friend without obvious and public consequences. Namely, the friend told them to keep it secret (say to protect themselves; even someone who's far more powerful and advanced than any human can still be overwhelmed by sheer numbers); they get to have some advantages, but they have to be quiet and subtle ones that are simply not bandied about. However, anyone who talks about it would have to betray that trust from the get-go, so therefore they don't fall under this category to begin with. In other words, if there were people out there with 'access' to stuff that goes beyond human knowledge, they'd have to be keeping it uncharacteristically quiet.

Besides that, religious people, who are obligated to share their special knowledge, definitely don't. And their excuses that God wants everyone to have free will are nonsensical; I want people to have free will and to be able to make choices rather than simply obeying orders, but I also want to be able to convince them to make choices I support, and if that's so, it only makes sense to muster as powerful of arguments as I can, and to give similar methods of persuasiveness to people who agree with me. If I were a being with divine powers, then I would want to give my adherents some share of those powers in order to help them demonstrate that they knew what they were talking about; it isn't a fallacy to argue from authority if one does actually have the authority. The only way I wouldn't share those powers with them is if I didn't have them to begin with.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

There'd be no reason to create something. There's nothing you want, nothing you need. You're completely whole as you are. The entire reason we do anything is to answer some sort of desire or need within us, even if it's just to serve a temporary whim. A perfect being does not have such things to respond to.

That's the thing - Haven't you ever done anything for absolutely no reason?

But, to play devil's advocate a little bit again, wouldn't it depend on what the actual parameters of this perfection were? I mean, if God is only perfect at being absolutely perfect, that's a bit meaningless, so we have to throw something of a qualifier in there. Many Christians resort to the standard "perfect goodness and love" model, which kinda doesn't fly given some of the atrocities committed by Yahwe, but couldn't he be something else? Say, a "perfect creator", which wouldn't necessarily imply being able to create only perfection if his aim was more one of setting up a vast cosmic game of The Sims, leaving room for the randomness and impulse of "free will". He'd be perfect at creating anything that he could imagine. Including stuff with inherent imperfection. Nothing in that definition, to my understanding, anyway, implies that he'd have no capacity for craving a bit of amusement.

Of course, in this case, his perfection (especially if coupled with omniscience) should have resulted in a game wherein things went his way, or, if he was set on creating something with the potential to spiral out of control (which he could, if he wanted, being an omnipowerful creator), he'd have no cause to throw the giant hissy-fits he did when things did, in fact, do just that.

While I certainly do not disagree with you, there is one explanation that allows for some such people to have access to such a friend without obvious and public consequences. Namely, the friend told them to keep it secret (say to protect themselves; even someone who's far more powerful and advanced than any human can still be overwhelmed by sheer numbers); they get to have some advantages, but they have to be quiet and subtle ones that are simply not bandied about. However, anyone who talks about it would have to betray that trust from the get-go, so therefore they don't fall under this category to begin with. In other words, if there were people out there with 'access' to stuff that goes beyond human knowledge, they'd have to be keeping it uncharacteristically quiet.

This is the theist's classic dilemma. On the one hand, they need to brag from the hilltops about how omni-awesomesauce their god is, and how they're his specialest little snowflakes. This is what gives them a sense that their lives and persons have meaning and purpose and moral value. On the other hand, they have to find ways to rig their theology so that it explains why reality (including the reality of their own lives) behaves exactly the way it would if their god is imaginary.[1]And they have to keep these two sectors of thought apart in their minds, so they don't mutually annihilate like matter and antimatter. Theism is hard work.

going back to my original post, God didn't stop evil because like I said it was Satan who created it so technically Satan is the source of all evil therefore in order to expunge evil, Satan would be the answer and that is how the story begins with Adama and Eve. God knows everythign.

So, let me get this straight. Satan rebelled. God needed to prove to Satan that he was still top dog. In order to do this, god created Eden, and A&E, knowing full well that they would violate the tree of knowledge rule, so that Satan could corrupt them and henceforth all humans would be auto-sinners and require salvation to keep from burning in hell forever and then he got pissed at everyone except Noah and drowned all the evil humans he created to be evil in the first place then eventually he sent the kid to make it possible to actually be saved and now we atheists have to put up with you. Is that about right?

So, let me get this straight. Satan rebelled. God needed to prove to Satan that he was still top dog. In order to do this, god created Eden, and A&E, knowing full well that they would violate the tree of knowledge rule, so that Satan could corrupt them and henceforth all humans would be auto-sinners and require salvation to keep from burning in hell forever and then he got pissed at everyone except Noah and drowned all the evil humans he created to be evil in the first place then eventually he sent the kid to make it possible to actually be saved and now we atheists have to put up with you. Is that about right?

Not to mention the fact that by setting up this whole farce just so he could save face with Satan, God condemned countless "unsaved" souls to eternal torture. Does he think that this collateral damage is justified by the fact that Satan will get to see who is boss? Wow. How do you manage even to begin understanding this as loving behavior?

Not to mention the fact that by setting up this whole farce just so he could save face with Satan, God condemned countless "unsaved" souls to eternal torture. Does he think that this collateral damage is justified by the fact that Satan will get to see who is boss? Wow. How do you manage even to begin understanding this as loving behavior?

Agreed. To burn me forever in hell to teach satan a lesson seems somewhat futile. If satan is really bad, he wouldn't care, and it's a lousy lesson, and if he was good, he would have succumbed to the guilt long ago.

If this is the best plan an omnipotent dude can come up with, we need to redefine omnipotent to mean "grossly incompetent on a huge scale".

Besides, we were told in eden that we would become as gods if we ate from the tree of life (I'm paraphrasing, but that's what christians do too), then we are now as gods and it doesn't seem to be much of an advantage. I still fart, for instance.

Lance's assumption that we have questions about his god (in another thread, I think) is erroneous. We only have questions as to why people believe this stuff. He's not helping.

Why did you feel it was necessary for YOU to blame Anfauglir's father's death and his mothers Alzheimer's on Anfaulglir being an atheist? Do you honestly think that bad things only happen to people who do not have faith?

Logged

When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.